Results 1 to 20 of 1935

Thread: Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    This is not really the thread to discuss Cold War history, but I will respond to several obvious inaccuracies
    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    The correct unit designations were the 2nd and 3rd ACRs
    3rd ACR came back to the USA in 1968, returning for REFORGER 78 and 88 IIRC. The 2nd and 11th ACRs were the ACRs for the 2 USAREUR Corps.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    I am not sure even up to 1989 neither USAREUR/EUCOM but mainly USAREUR felt they could not win in a direct confrontation from the get go---if that were the case then a number of USA SF teams carrying ADMs destined to create choke points and to deny freedom of movement and slow resupply would not have been needed.
    Teams may have been planned for ADMs, but that was only one of many branches and sequels to the war plans. SF teams weren't just wandering around with man-portable nukes. Do you have any idea what a nut roll it was to get authorization for release of nukes in Europe? We used to practice the process in Corps/Division HQ CPXs.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    It was felt that the 2 ACRs would never be enough to slow, stop and or defeat the initial charges of the Soviet Army Ground Forces Germany
    The revision of FM 100-5 in 1976 was the basis for rethinking how the US Army would fight and win in Germany . The cav was a part of that effort, not the whole of it. I'm not sure where you get you claim to the contrary; perhaps, from anecdotal discussions with folks who were not really in a position to know. I used to play rugby against guys in those Cav regiments, many of whom were Troop Commanders or Squadron/Regimental staff officers. They were sure they were going to stop Ivan cold.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    USAREUR moved additional armored assets to Garlstedt Lower Saxony in 85/86 timeframes in order to give an additional slow down effect and to get them out of the so called drug infested large German cities which did not in the end work but it was a great completely new base.
    3rd Bde of 2nd AD arrived from TX (not German cities) in Garlstedt in 1978, not 1985, as 2AD (forward) and stayed there until 1990 when it deployed for DS/DS, returned from the desert and was finally deactivated in 1992. BTW Garlstedt is indeed in Niedersachsen, but is north of Bremen, in the NORTHAG sector. The majority of US Forces were in CENTAG. BTW, In addition to all of 1st AD, 3rd AD, 3rd ID, and 8th ID, 1st ID and 4th ID also each had a brigade forward--4th ID's Bde was in V Corps, 1st ID's Bde was in VII Corps.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Everything at that point in 1986 was designed to slow down and provide time for follow on forces out of the States to reach Europe.

    Not sure where you get your information but the US needed time to get the large Reforger designated units into Europe as flow on follow on units---thus the need to create time in a holding formation. Remember the Reforger concept and you failed to mention that and the US had starting in 1968 moving a large number of it's units back to the States and kept pre-positioned equipment for the Reforger units to fall in on which they then turned back into the depots when completing the Reforger exercises---so where is this idea USAREUR felt they could win from the get go.
    As part of the 1984 REFORGER/Operation CERTAIN FURY Planning team in CONUS, I know all about time frames for getting troops to Germany and equipped at the various POMCUS sites. TPFDD and TPFDLs still give me bad dreams.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    Not sure where you were in 1986 but the Warsaw Pact conducted one of the largest exercises up to that point which had USAREUR stunned at what was pulled up to by the Soviet Ground Forces Germany within 30kms of the inner German border (and in Lower Saxony up to within 3kms) and what was then pulled into their secondary lines in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
    Back when I worked the problem directly in the 70s and 80s, we were well aware of the availability of Soviet forces in GSFG, NGF, CGF, and SGF and the Western MDs, not to mention the WP forces of EGer, Pol, Czech, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    The last Reforger exercise was in 1989
    REFORGER continued until 1993.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    There was some new thinking for that exercise that the old Fulda Gap scenario might have been in fact wrong when the Soviet Ground Forces suddenly shifted their armored assets more northerly and focused on the Lower Saxony border area (UK protected zone) which reflected their interest in cutting all follow on resupply coming in via Holland and a shorter run to the Rhine River. That was also one of the major thoughts behind the repositioning of US armored assets into Lower Saxony and extremely close to the inner German border as the UK did not even in 1989 have large ground forces based in the border area.
    I mentioned this alternative in a prior post and that I was a member of those who were suggesting it back in1978 or so.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    This http://inforesist.org/numbers-rf-arm...iness/?lang=en(Relocated by wm from location in original post) was posted today by a previously provided Ukrainian link and one can or cannot accept it but it is probably next to the Breedlove photo release one of the best listings of Russian Army Order of Battle arrayed now on the Ukrainian/Crimea border region by named Russian units and equipment available.

    Reminds one of the inner German border days in 1989 but we only had to deal with T72/80s not the newer T80/90s.
    From my review of the content of that link, the data is a presentation of someone's belief, not necessarily actuality. I assess it as F6.

    Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
    So you are assuming the 173rd is just for what justifying more money in an already defined and approved military budget with a planned sequester feature kicking in at the middle of this year---come on wm the 173rd is happy to be on the road for live fire exercises especially if you have ever spent eight hours on just getting to and from their own Italian live fire ranges besides they get bored in a hurry if you have seen their old and now new installations as they finished their last AFG rotation and they had only African training events on the horizon in the coming years and with the current Army wide limited training budget they are happy to be on the move as there was not much to keep them busy and there was a serious conversation in late 2013 on whether they would in fact remain in Italy or be moved to Grafenwoehr and or back to the States as their artillery Bn is in Grafenwoehr after the latest round of base closures in Germany.

    Heck with the limited training budgets and limited AF assets in Europe they were having trouble just getting their pay jumps in for the BNs.
    I said political or budget related reasons--I did not further specify. I wonder how you got all of the above from what I said. Perhaps part of the political reason was to get them out of Italy before they started getting cabin fever and messed up Italy (all in good, testosterone-pumped fun of course--that's just what airborne troops do ) I don't know, but please don't put words in my mouth.
    Last edited by wm; 04-27-2014 at 01:48 AM. Reason: cite amendment in quotation
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 457
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 11:56 PM
  2. Replies: 4772
    Last Post: 06-14-2015, 04:41 PM
  3. Shot down over the Ukraine: MH17
    By JMA in forum Europe
    Replies: 253
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 08:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •